Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Has Piaget Gone Down For the Long Count? (was Piaget) - PART 2



PART 2

REFERENCES
AAAS. 1993. "Benchmarks For Science Literacy. Oxford University
Press; online at
<http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolintro.htm>. See
especially Chapter 15 "The Research Base" at
<http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/ch15/ch15.htm>.

Adey, P.S. 1999. "The Science of Thinking and Science for Thinking: A
Description of Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education
(CASE)," UNESCO, International Bureau of Education, Switzerland; now
online at
<http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/databanks/Innodata/inograph.htm>.
See also the CASE website <http://www.case-network.org/index.html>,
Adey & Shayer (1994), Adey (2001), and Shayer & Adey (2002).

Adey, P. & M. Shayer, eds. 1994. "Really Raising Standards: Cognitive
Interventions and Academic Achievement." Routledge.

Adey, P. 2001. "Thinking Science" 3rd ed. Nelson Thornes.

Anderson, J.R. 2000. "Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications," W.H.
Freeman, Fifth ed., esp. Chapter 13: "Individual Differences in Cognition."

Arons, A.B. 1976. "Cultivating the capacity for formal operations:
Objectives and procedures in an introductory physical science
course." Am. J. Phys. 44: 834. For a review of Arons's pioneering
work on physics education see Hake (2004b).

Arons, A.B. 1983. "Achieving Wider Scientific Literacy," Daedalus,
Spring. Reprinted in Arons (1990, 1997).

Arons, A.B. 1990. "A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching." Wiley;
reprinted with minor updates in Arons (1997).

Arons, A.B. 1997. "Teaching Introductory Physics." Wiley.

Arons, A.B. & R. Karplus. 1976. "Implications of Accumulating Data on
Levels of Intellectual Development," Am. J. Phys. 44: 396. Reprinted
in Fuller (2002).

Bellina, J. 2005. "Re: Piaget," Phys-L post of 2 Sep 2005
20:54:18-0500; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1525>.

Bruner, J.S. 1974. "Toward A Theory of Instruction." Norton.>

Bruner, J.S. 1977. "The Process of Education," Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S. 1979. "On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand," Harvard
University Press.

Bruner, J.S. 1990. "Acts of Meaning," Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S. 1996. "The Culture of Education," Harvard University Press.

Butterworth, B. 1999. "What Counts: How Every Brain Is Hardwired for
Math." Free Press.

Dehaene, S. 1999. "The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates
Mathematics." Oxford University Press. See also Butterworth (1999).

Fuller, R.G., ed. 2002. "A Love of Discovery: Science Education - The
Second Career of Robert Karplus." Kluwer. This is a valuable resource
containing seminal papers of Karplus and his colleagues.

Gardner, H. 1991. "The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think & How
Schools Should Teach." Basic Books.

von Glasersfeld, E. 1997a. "Homage to Jean Piaget (1896-1982), Irish
J. of Psychology 18(2), 293-306; online at
<http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers.html>. See
also von Glasersfeld (1997b).

von Glasersfeld, E. 1997b. "Piaget's Legacy: Cognition as Adaptive
Activity," Presented at International Kongress; online at
<http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers.html>.

Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Active learning in theory, active learning in
practice, or both?" post of 3 Oct 2003 20:34:50-0700 to AP-Physics,
ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, Physhare,
POD, & STLHE-L; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=pod&O=A&P=2480>.

Hake, R.R. 2003b. "What's "Developmentally Appropriate"?" post of 9
Oct 2003 20:55:07-0700 to PhysLrnR, POD, & STLHE-L; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=pod&P=R5224>; later
distributed to Phys-L, Math-Learn, and Biopi-L: I wrote "A crucial
question in science/math education in K-16 is: 'What's
Developmentally Appropriate?' This seems to be an interdisciplinary
problem cutting across cognitive science (including developmental
psychology), education, math, and scientific disciplines."

Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" AAPT Announcer 34(2): 177; online as
reference 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download
directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DirInstSetback-041104f.pdf> (420 KB)
[about 160 references and 180 hot-linked URL's]. A pdf version of the
slides shown at the meeting is also available at ref. 33 or can be
downloaded directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AAPT-Slides.pdf> (132 kB). See
also Hake (2005). For a less pessimistic assessment of the future of
California K-8 science education see Woolf (2005).

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "The Arons Advocated Method," submitted to the
"American Journal of Physics" on 24 April 2004; online as reference
31 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly as a 144
kB pdf by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/AronsAdvMeth-8.pdf>.

Hake, R.R. 2005. "Will the No Child Left Behind Act Promote Direct
Instruction of Science?" Am. Phys. Soc. 50: 851 (2005); APS March
Meeting, Los Angles, CA. 21-25 March; online as ref. 36 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly by
clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf> (256
kB).

Kay, A. 2003. Private communication of 7 October to to R.R. Hake. See
also at Kay (1991), <http://www.viewpointsresearch.org/alan.html>,
and VRI
(2003)].

Kay, A. 1991. "Computers, Networks, and Education," Scientific
American. September, pp: 138-148.

Lawson, A.E. 1995. "Science Teaching and the Development of
Thinking." Wadsworth. Appendix F. See also Lawson (2002).

Lawson, A.E. 2002. "Promoting Creative and Critical Thinking Skills
in College Biology, Bioscene 27(1): 13-24; online at
<http://acube.org/volume_27/index.html>: "A model of creative and
critical thinking is presented in which analogical reasoning is used
to link planes of thought and generate ideas that are then tested by
employing an "if/and/then" pattern of reasoning. . . . During a
recent semester, a comparison of STUDENT PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST
SCORES on a test of reasoning skills found significant improvements,
suggesting meaningful gains in student thinking skills."

McKinnon, J.W. & J.W. Renner. 1971. "Are colleges concerned with intellectual
development?" Am. J. Phys. 39: 1047-1052.

Metzenberg, S. 1998. Testimony before the U.S. House of
Representatives; online at
<http://mathematicallycorrect.com/moremetz.htm>. Metzenberg
testified: I vehemently disagree with [the national documents (AAAS
1993) and (NRC 1996)] because UNDERSTANDING IS BUILT ONLY UPON A
SOLID FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS*. . . . The California
Standards are significantly different from the national standards
because they were developed in a committee chaired by one of the most
notable scientists of our century, Glenn T. Seaborg . . . I would
recommend that the NSF consider his contributions very carefully, and
reject the tenets of the educational reform movement." [My CAPS]."
Metzenberg neglects mention of: (a) Seaborg's enthusiasm for hands-
and minds-on science activities (Woolf 2004)], (b) the importance
PROCEDURAL knowledge ("WHY do we believe the Earth revolves around
the Sun?", as opposed to the DECLARATIVE knowledge ("the Earth
revolves around the Sun") which he appears to champion. For
discussions of the declarative/procedural distinction see Anderson
(2000), Arons (1983), Lawson (1995), and Sternberg (1999).

Mertzenberg, S. undated #1. "Reading: The Most Important Science
Process Skill," Antenna; online at
<http://www.youth.net/ysc/educnews/readscie.htm>. Metzenberg opined
"What has been left unsaid is that real scientists don't actually
spend very much of their day 'observing' and 'measuring.' They read!
Reading for understanding of content is the core process skill of
science, and there is no substitute for practice at an early age. . .
Hands-on investigative activities ought to be sprinkled into a
science program like a 'spice' they cannot substitute for a 'main
dish'. The best 'hands-on' program would be one in which students can
get their 'hands on' an informative textbook!"

Mertzenberg, S. undated #2. "Piaget goes down for the Long Count,"
Antenna; online at <http://www.youth.net/ysc/educnews/piaget.htm>.

Metzenberg, S. 1999. "Talk at the 1999 Conference on Standards-Based
K-12 Education; online at
<http://www.csun.edu/~hcbio027/standards/conference.html/may21/metzenberg.html>.
Metzenberg stated (my CAPS): IN SCIENCE YOU DO NOT GET VERY FAR IF
YOU DON'T KNOW THINGS. . . . If you look at the science standards
from different states, you will often see that the writers had a
great deal of trouble having the students 'know' things . . . So how
did the verb "to know" get such a bad reputation? I think it is
because to some people, the verb "know" connotes memorization, or a
type of rote repeating of something that has been said. In their
view, if you ask a student to know something, you are
only asking that they be able to parrot it back. On the other hand to
be able "to explain" something is said to indicate a higher order
form of thought. . . one of the first big surprises I had as a new
faculty member here, reading essay exams, was that students can
explain things without knowing anything at all. . . THIS STATE HAS
MADE A TREMENDOUS STEP FORWARD BY REJECTING THE CONTENT-FREE
APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EDUCATION."

NCTMS. 2005. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards;
online at <http://www.nctm.org/> / "NCTM Standards" where "/" means
"click on."

NRC. 1996. "National Science Education Standards," National Academy
Press; online in HTML at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html>.

Schoenfeld, A.H. 2003. "Math Wars," ["almost final draft of 5 August 2003"]
to appear in "2004 Politics of Education Yearbook," edited by B.C.
Johnson and W.L. Boyd; online as a 76 kB pdf at
<http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/AHSchoenfeld/AHSchoenfeld.html>,
along with some other worthwhile papers, or access directly by
clicking on
<http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/AHSchoenfeld/Math_Wars.pdf> (76 KB).

Shayer, M. & P. Adey, eds. 2002. "Learning Intelligence: Cognitive
Acceleration across the Curriculum from 5 to 15 Years." Open
University Press. See also Adey (1990), Adey & Shayer (1994), Adey et
al. (1989).

Sternberg, R.J. 1999. "Cognitive Psychology" Harcourt, Second ed.

Uretsky, J. 2005. "Piaget," Phys-L post of 2 Sep 2005 19:24:49-0500;
online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1451>.

VRI. 2003. Viewpoints Research Institute; online at Institute
<http://www.viewpointsresearch.org/about.html>: "Many who believe in
'progressive education' do not understand the need for thresholds of
achievement (below which nothing much of importance has happened
within the child). The other main faction -- Back to Basics -- wants
thresholds, but misunderstand mathematics and science to the point
that neither of these subjects is even presented in school."

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. "Mind in society: the development of higher
psychological processes," ed. by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman. Harvard Univ. Press.

Woolf, L.D. 2004. "Testimony of 1/16/04 to the California Curriculum
Commission regarding hands-on science limitation," online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/index.html> as a
52 kB pdf at <http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/12CA83.pdf>.

Woolf, L.D. 2005. "California Political Science Education," APS Forum
on Education Newsletter, Summer 2005; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2005/woolf.html>.
Woolf wrote: " . . . getting involved can make a major difference, as
in the case noted above where the [Criteria For Evaluating K-8
Science Instructional Materials in Preparation for the 2006
Adoption]. were altered from "no more than" to "at least" 25% [the
actual wording is 20-25%] hands-on science. This change will
presumably result in hands-on science programs being adopted for use
in California in the near future, ending a 7-year drought." Compare
Hake (2004): "I list below two reasons to be doubtful that the
amendments to the "Criteria" will affect the adoptions process: (a)
textbooks containing more than 20% hands-on material will probably
NOT be adopted, (b) exemplary nationally-developed, research-based,
hands-on science instructional materials will probably NOT Be
Adopted."

THE END
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l